TTL VS Manual for a wedding (or other event), what do you prefer?

[Elite83]

For those who shoot wedding and/or event photos, what do you prefer to use on the shoot? TTL, or manual flash? Why?

I'd assume in this day and age most people use TTL since it's pretty much standard on all OEM flashes at this point. However, I thought it'd be an interesting question from which to hear back.

Given budget constraints thus far I've opted for the "cheap" third-party flashes that are manual only. Having learned to use speedlites with only manual, naturally, I've become accustomed to manual. However, I often wonder if it's worth the cost to make the jump to a TTL speedlite system.

--
-Matt
https://500px.com/mcooi77

 

[BAK]

As far as Speedlight style flash guns go, most wedding and event and editorial photographers are better off with TTL flash units that also have manual over-ride.

BAK

 

[Gato Amarillo]

I'm old enough that when I started manual was the only option. So I can handle it but TTL is so much easier and (in most cases) more accurate.

For almost anything with flash on the camera I'll pick TTL, especially something like a wedding where I'm moving around, the subjects are moving around, and it is very important to get key photo as they happen.

For a more static setup I can go either way but lean toward manual. Most of my lights are manual only, but I like to keep at least one TTL on hand. I rarely do event-type jobs but would really hate to go back to keeping up with manual flash.

Gato

 

[oldfashioned]

I'm old enough that when I started manual was the only option. So I can handle it but TTL is so much easier and (in most cases) more accurate.

For almost anything with flash on the camera I'll pick TTL, especially something like a wedding where I'm moving around, the subjects are moving around, and it is very important to get key photo as they happen.

For a more static setup I can go either way but lean toward manual. Most of my lights are manual only, but I like to keep at least one TTL on hand. I rarely do event-type jobs but would really hate to go back to keeping up with manual flash.

Gato

Yes!

perfect answer that I'd like to "elaborate" a little if you don't mind

it depends on the type of wedding. The code word for amateur weddings is PJ style (which means " I don't know how to shoot a real wedding so I go around a shoot everything that moves so I look like a pro")

weddings come in two parts:

1. the formals.

2. the non-important stuff and the reception

the part #1 needs proper lighting and posed shots. And a real wedding photographer. The ratio is almost always manually set. All the formals will end up in the album

the part #2 is less important (very few shots will participate in the album selection) and can be done in auto (thyristor or through-the-lens)

As a form of higher justice for job appropriation by incompetent wedding amateurs now there is the immediate punishment by the guests sporting instant diffusion of their cellphones production in natural or ambient light that look way better than the incompetent self appointed "pro" because cellphones usually don't use any flash at all.

so there.

 

[tintifax]

I work with one flash on the camera when I move around between the people there is no other option.

In rooms I often position 2 additional slave-flashes that goes indirect over the ceiling.

But always TTL!

Outside I also use the flash and sometimes I correct it +/- as necessary.

 

[photolando]

As a corporate event shooter, there was a time I only shot manual flash. But you also left out an option, though it’s fading on just about every flash, Auto. I had an old Metz 58 (56?) AF that had an AWESOME Auto setting. I believe it had an auto thyristor in there to calculate the output but it was accurate more than my TTL! But it went out awhile back and I never bothered to try and get it fixed.

However, these days? TTL. Except if I know I will be a certain distance for a long time, say for instance award winners/handshakes onstage. I’m usually at 1/4 power and not moving very much so every shot looks the same exposure wise later.

But as others have mentioned, if your moving about, you have not only the ambient light changing but also what people wear. I shoot a lot of guys in dark suits so my TTL is always being “fooled” thinking that it’s a dark scene so if left on 0 compensation, the flash will pump out to much light on TTL. I usually have to dial it down -2/3 of a stop. If they are wearing white, dial UP about 1/3 or so. THat’s also one reason I use to shoot in manual a lot at gigs. I was usually the about the same distance away from people and with my flash set to about 1/4 power, most of my shots were pretty close. BUt TTL has gotten so good over the years, I feel I can depend on it these days.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

For those who shoot wedding and/or event photos, what do you prefer to use on the shoot? TTL, or manual flash? Why?

I'd assume in this day and age most people use TTL since it's pretty much standard on all OEM flashes at this point. However, I thought it'd be an interesting question from which to hear back.

Given budget constraints thus far I've opted for the "cheap" third-party flashes that are manual only. Having learned to use speedlites with only manual, naturally, I've become accustomed to manual. However, I often wonder if it's worth the cost to make the jump to a TTL speedlite system.

As photolando briefly got into, there is a third option, and sometimes it's better: older-style auto. What do I mean by that? There is a sensor on the flash that measures the light reflected back during the flash output and cuts off the output when the sensor determines that the flash has adequately illuminated the scene. It is not TTL, but it is an automated, shot-specific system to get the 'right' exposure. Once auto-flashes were common, even the norm. I still have a Sunpak 383 Super, which is an auto-flash that performs well.

Why auto? Because it avoids those annoying preflashes--the ones that make people close their eyes etc. TTL with digital got set back compared to how it was with film. Film TTL was "TTL-OTF" meaning "through the lens [and] off the film". It had a sensor inside the camera that measured flash light bouncing back off the film. There were no pre-flashes. The exposures were usually very good, especially when combined with distance integration technology (which used the lens focus setting to determine the flash-to-subject distance and adjust the flash exposure accordingly). When digital sensors came along, light bouncing back off the sensor was not a good way to judge flash exposure. So instead of judging the flash exposure during the actual exposure, we got pre-flashes that were used to set the power for the main, during-the-exposure flash pop.

Why not auto? Mostly because few if any auto flashes can be set to take into account how long a lens you're using. My Sunpak does a good job, even on a DSLR, when the field of view is somewhere about like a 35 or 50mm lens on 'full-frame'. But if you use a long lens (or zoom in more), it often bases exposure on what is or is not reflecting light inside the flash's scope but not within the lens's field of view.

That was my conclusion some years ago. TTL flashes for digital have probably gotten considerably smarter since then. But if the fundamental problem has been solved, I'm not aware of it.

 

[richiebee]

I have a TTL flash (Yongnuo - it wasn't expensive). I use it in manual if I have time to set up, have a predictable path of how I'm shooting and don't have to think about too many other things. Otherwise, I set to iTTL and it gets me the shot, if not the best it can get.

 

[tintifax]

For those who shoot wedding and/or event photos, what do you prefer to use on the shoot? TTL, or manual flash? Why?

I'd assume in this day and age most people use TTL since it's pretty much standard on all OEM flashes at this point. However, I thought it'd be an interesting question from which to hear back.

Given budget constraints thus far I've opted for the "cheap" third-party flashes that are manual only. Having learned to use speedlites with only manual, naturally, I've become accustomed to manual. However, I often wonder if it's worth the cost to make the jump to a TTL speedlite system.

As photolando briefly got into, there is a third option, and sometimes it's better: older-style auto. What do I mean by that? There is a sensor on the flash that measures the light reflected back during the flash output and cuts off the output when the sensor determines that the flash has adequately illuminated the scene. It is not TTL, but it is an automated, shot-specific system to get the 'right' exposure. Once auto-flashes were common, even the norm. I still have a Sunpak 383 Super, which is an auto-flash that performs well.

Why auto? Because it avoids those annoying preflashes--the ones that make people close their eyes etc. TTL with digital got set back compared to how it was with film. Film TTL was "TTL-OTF" meaning "through the lens [and] off the film". It had a sensor inside the camera that measured flash light bouncing back off the film. There were no pre-flashes. The exposures were usually very good, especially when combined with distance integration technology (which used the lens focus setting to determine the flash-to-subject distance and adjust the flash exposure accordingly). When digital sensors came along, light bouncing back off the sensor was not a good way to judge flash exposure. So instead of judging the flash exposure during the actual exposure, we got pre-flashes that were used to set the power for the main, during-the-exposure flash pop.

Why not auto? Mostly because few if any auto flashes can be set to take into account how long a lens you're using. My Sunpak does a good job, even on a DSLR, when the field of view is somewhere about like a 35 or 50mm lens on 'full-frame'. But if you use a long lens (or zoom in more), it often bases exposure on what is or is not reflecting light inside the flash's scope but not within the lens's field of view.

That was my conclusion some years ago. TTL flashes for digital have probably gotten considerably smarter since then. But if the fundamental problem has been solved, I'm not aware of it.

how about switching the pre-flashes off?

I never use the pre-flashes because it causes a shutter-lag and everybody closes his/her eyes.

But I always use TTL because it measures only the part that the lens can see and not the wide angle that the flash can see.

To let the flash do the job is outdated. To let the camera do the job by TTL-flash-technology is much more precise.

--
with best regards from Vienna
Thomas T
G
M
T
Sprache erkennenAfrikaansAlbanischArabischArmenischAserbaidschanischBaskischBengalischBosnischBulgarischBurmesischCebuanoChichewaChinesisch (ver)Chinesisch (trad)DänischDeutschEnglischEsperantoEstnischFinnischFranzösischGalizischGeorgischGriechischGujaratiHaitianischHausaHebräischHindiHmongIgboIndonesischIrischIsländischItalienischJapanischJavanesischJiddischKannadaKasachischKatalanischKhmerKoreanischKroatischLaoLateinishLettischLitauischMalabarischMalagasyMalaysischMaltesischMaoriMarathischMazedonischMongolischNepalesischNiederländischNorwegischPersischPolnischPortugiesischPunjabiRumänischRussischSchwedischSerbischSesothoSinghalesischSlowakischSlowenischSomaliSpanischSuaheliSundanesischTadschikischTagalogTamilTeluguThailändischTschechischTürkischUkrainischUngarischUrduUzbekischVietnamesischWalisischWeißrussischYorubaZulu AfrikaansAlbanischArabischArmenischAserbaidschanischBaskischBengalischBosnischBulgarischBurmesischCebuanoChichewaChinesisch (ver)Chinesisch (trad)DänischDeutschEnglischEsperantoEstnischFinnischFranzösischGalizischGeorgischGriechischGujaratiHaitianischHausaHebräischHindiHmongIgboIndonesischIrischIsländischItalienischJapanischJavanesischJiddischKannadaKasachischKatalanischKhmerKoreanischKroatischLaoLateinishLettischLitauischMalabarischMalagasyMalaysischMaltesischMaoriMarathischMazedonischMongolischNepalesischNiederländischNorwegischPersischPolnischPortugiesischPunjabiRumänischRussischSchwedischSerbischSesothoSinghalesischSlowakischSlowenischSomaliSpanischSuaheliSundanesischTadschikischTagalogTamilTeluguThailändischTschechischTürkischUkrainischUngarischUrduUzbekischVietnamesischWalisischWeißrussischYorubaZulu
Die Sound-Funktion ist auf 200 Zeichen begrenzt
Optionen : Geschichte : Feedback : DonateSchließen

 

[fotowbert]

how about switching the pre-flashes off?

I never use the pre-flashes because it causes a shutter-lag and everybody closes his/her eyes.

You must be referring to the red-eye reduction flashes, those annoying pops before the camera fires.

But I always use TTL because it measures only the part that the lens can see and not the wide angle that the flash can see.

Digital TTL uses a pre-flash to set flash power. It normally isn't noticed by most individuals because it appears to be part of the flash burst although some are sensitive to it and have a tendency to blink.

A easy way to observe the TTL pre-flash is to set rear-curtain sync and a slow shutter speed such as 1/2 sec. This will separate the pre-flash from the image capture by about the shutter open time. You will see the pre-flash before the shutter opens followed by another flash just before the shutter closes.

• John

 

[oldfashioned]

For those who shoot wedding and/or event photos, what do you prefer to use on the shoot? TTL, or manual flash? Why?

I'd assume in this day and age most people use TTL since it's pretty much standard on all OEM flashes at this point. However, I thought it'd be an interesting question from which to hear back.

Given budget constraints thus far I've opted for the "cheap" third-party flashes that are manual only. Having learned to use speedlites with only manual, naturally, I've become accustomed to manual. However, I often wonder if it's worth the cost to make the jump to a TTL speedlite system.

As photolando briefly got into, there is a third option, and sometimes it's better: older-style auto. What do I mean by that? There is a sensor on the flash that measures the light reflected back during the flash output and cuts off the output when the sensor determines that the flash has adequately illuminated the scene. It is not TTL, but it is an automated, shot-specific system to get the 'right' exposure. Once auto-flashes were common, even the norm. I still have a Sunpak 383 Super, which is an auto-flash that performs well.

Why auto? Because it avoids those annoying preflashes--the ones that make people close their eyes etc. TTL with digital got set back compared to how it was with film. Film TTL was "TTL-OTF" meaning "through the lens [and] off the film". It had a sensor inside the camera that measured flash light bouncing back off the film. There were no pre-flashes. The exposures were usually very good, especially when combined with distance integration technology (which used the lens focus setting to determine the flash-to-subject distance and adjust the flash exposure accordingly). When digital sensors came along, light bouncing back off the sensor was not a good way to judge flash exposure. So instead of judging the flash exposure during the actual exposure, we got pre-flashes that were used to set the power for the main, during-the-exposure flash pop.

Why not auto? Mostly because few if any auto flashes can be set to take into account how long a lens you're using. My Sunpak does a good job, even on a DSLR, when the field of view is somewhere about like a 35 or 50mm lens on 'full-frame'. But if you use a long lens (or zoom in more), it often bases exposure on what is or is not reflecting light inside the flash's scope but not within the lens's field of view.

That was my conclusion some years ago. TTL flashes for digital have probably gotten considerably smarter since then. But if the fundamental problem has been solved, I'm not aware of it.

how about switching the pre-flashes off?

I never use the pre-flashes because it causes a shutter-lag and everybody closes his/her eyes.

But I always use TTL because it measures only the part that the lens can see and not the wide angle that the flash can see.

To let the flash do the job is outdated. To let the camera do the job by TTL-flash-technology is much more precise.

--
with best regards from Vienna
Thomas T

I agree. auto thyristor is indeed outdated. The metz implementation however still gets the best results

Remember that the first release of E-TTL was a disaster , in particular working weddings and events where black and white clothes are all over. A slight movement and the pre-set value becomes wrong.

The second implementation of E-TTL (II) corrected (in part) the performance. It has (simply put) a lot to do with the evaluation and prediction (yes! it is a software prediction of the scene)

By comparison the cut-off technique of the original thyristor operated "live" in real time, and again with the correction of the auto sync (aperture, ASA, SS and in some cases even the distance) of the Metz SCA system was and probably still is the most reliable.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Digital TTL uses a pre-flash to set flash power. It normally isn't noticed by most individuals because it appears to be part of the flash burst although some are sensitive to it and have a tendency to blink.

That has been my experience. I seem to see / experience a lot of blinks with this. Maybe others' experience is better, or maybe newer flashes are better.